kyle 3 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 knew this would be a touch subject before i read it You can blame me for making this.. nahh thats a cool sig Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboyrfc 296 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 i'd rather it was 1872 for a few reasons including the cup winners cup victory being in our centenary year but i have been brought up with 1873. My wallpaper for many a year said Rangers est. 1873 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weebawbees 1 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 it says 1873 on the govan so thats good enough for me And you and IT are wrong. Stop celebrating the fact - pressure the club to put it right. tbh theres more important things to do,mind were 2nd in the league If that's your way of admitting that you were ignorant of the true facts and are willing to move on in an appropriate way, I'll accept that. Deflection never works though. i never said it wasnt 1872 i just didnt mind all that much is all i was just going by the official date recognised by the club i knew this would be a touch subject before i read it, its one of my pet hates all this arguing about the date fair enough mate - wasnt trying to pick a fight - just pointing out that earlier you had said that "1873 was good enough" for you. that was all. Although to be fair - it did sound like I WAS trying to pick a fight!! soz! thats awrite were all pals here FTP friends in football only im afraid. im a scientist and non-religious, my wife's an understanding catholic and your FTP holds no truck with me. By all means broaden your thoughts or continue being a bigot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whyrusogood 2 Posted October 9, 2009 Author Share Posted October 9, 2009 i'd rather it was 1872 for a few reasons including the cup winners cup victory being in our centenary year but i have been brought up with 1873. My wallpaper for many a year said Rangers est. 1873 lets get rangers to sort this and we can all be pals! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle 3 Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 it says 1873 on the govan so thats good enough for me And you and IT are wrong. Stop celebrating the fact - pressure the club to put it right. tbh theres more important things to do,mind were 2nd in the league If that's your way of admitting that you were ignorant of the true facts and are willing to move on in an appropriate way, I'll accept that. Deflection never works though. i never said it wasnt 1872 i just didnt mind all that much is all i was just going by the official date recognised by the club i knew this would be a touch subject before i read it, its one of my pet hates all this arguing about the date fair enough mate - wasnt trying to pick a fight - just pointing out that earlier you had said that "1873 was good enough" for you. that was all. Although to be fair - it did sound like I WAS trying to pick a fight!! soz! thats awrite were all pals here FTP friends in football only im afraid. im a scientist and non-religious, my wife's an understanding catholic and your FTP holds no truck with me. By all means broaden your thoughts or continue being a bigot. i am anti-religious Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weebawbees 1 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 it says 1873 on the govan so thats good enough for me And you and IT are wrong. Stop celebrating the fact - pressure the club to put it right. tbh theres more important things to do,mind were 2nd in the league If that's your way of admitting that you were ignorant of the true facts and are willing to move on in an appropriate way, I'll accept that. Deflection never works though. i never said it wasnt 1872 i just didnt mind all that much is all i was just going by the official date recognised by the club i knew this would be a touch subject before i read it, its one of my pet hates all this arguing about the date fair enough mate - wasnt trying to pick a fight - just pointing out that earlier you had said that "1873 was good enough" for you. that was all. Although to be fair - it did sound like I WAS trying to pick a fight!! soz! thats awrite were all pals here FTP friends in football only im afraid. im a scientist and non-religious, my wife's an understanding catholic and your FTP holds no truck with me. By all means broaden your thoughts or continue being a bigot. i am anti-religious Then i would suggest you stop using inflammatory phrases like FTP. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. The Catholic faith forms just one side of the Christian faith. What would you suggest we do to the other (protestant) side? Also, how should we assault the Buddhists, Hindu's Islamist's, and Judais'ts I'm open to advice - and I think you need an education Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle 3 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Then i would suggest you stop using inflammatory phrases like FTP. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. The Catholic faith forms just one side of the Christian faith. What would you suggest we do to the other (protestant) side? Also, how should we assault the Buddhists, Hindu's Islamist's, and Judais'ts I'm open to advice - and I think you need an education i dont neeed an education,being against religion is my opinion and because i said ftp you assumed i had something against catholics,i have nothing against catholics or any member of any religion its the people who spread it like its fact that bother me the pope for instance he may be a nice guy but i still dont like him,i dont suggest we assault and religions i think there sorting thereselfs out lol church goers are a dying breed and no-one can really be bothered with the whole religion thing these days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangershistory 0 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 For those of you who say 1873, How the Hell can you argue with History. The club was formed in 1872 FULL STOP. Its not up for debate. But ok you lot are correct but one thing that means that our first game was against Havelock and the team line-up is not known so we can no longer assume that the McNeil brothers had anything to do with Rangers formation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whyrusogood 2 Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share Posted October 10, 2009 For those of you who say 1873, How the Hell can you argue with History. The club was formed in 1872 FULL STOP. Its not up for debate. But ok you lot are correct but one thing that means that our first game was against Havelock and the team line-up is not known so we can no longer assume that the McNeil brothers had anything to do with Rangers formation. rangers should change it then and let it be known to those who dont...and the other 2 pm each other dont ruin a thread on religion!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangershistory 0 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 For those of you who say 1873, How the Hell can you argue with History. The club was formed in 1872 FULL STOP. Its not up for debate. But ok you lot are correct but one thing that means that our first game was against Havelock and the team line-up is not known so we can no longer assume that the McNeil brothers had anything to do with Rangers formation. rangers should change it then and let it be known to those who dont...and the other 2 pm each other dont ruin a thread on religion!! The club dont have a clue about the history of the club, Look at the site today they have a story on Archibald Leitch its full of crap they say only 3 of his constuctions are left 2 at Craven Cottage and the Ibrox main stand, Its utter crap, What about the main stands at Tynecastle and Dens Park. And there are others as well. There are newspaper reports from 1872 detailing Rangers games. Some people say its because we never registered with the SFA until 1873. The SFA were not formed until 1873 so by that reasoning Queens Park were not formed until 1873 as well. As were Third Lanark. You cant argue with history its writen in stone. Rangers fans should be proud of the clubs history. But how can they celebrate something they know nothing about. So all I can say is read a book or 2. Start with the Ralstons Book. Its one of the best club history books writen and I should know I have over 600 football books. Ok Rant over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemacbrd 32 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 1872 Chapter 1 In the Beginning 4 Young Men Created Rangers FC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz52 11,837 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 1873 is what i recognise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whyrusogood 2 Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share Posted October 10, 2009 For those of you who say 1873, How the Hell can you argue with History. The club was formed in 1872 FULL STOP. Its not up for debate. But ok you lot are correct but one thing that means that our first game was against Havelock and the team line-up is not known so we can no longer assume that the McNeil brothers had anything to do with Rangers formation. rangers should change it then and let it be known to those who dont...and the other 2 pm each other dont ruin a thread on religion!! The club dont have a clue about the history of the club, Look at the site today they have a story on Archibald Leitch its full of crap they say only 3 of his constuctions are left 2 at Craven Cottage and the Ibrox main stand, Its utter crap, What about the main stands at Tynecastle and Dens Park. And there are others as well. There are newspaper reports from 1872 detailing Rangers games. Some people say its because we never registered with the SFA until 1873. The SFA were not formed until 1873 so by that reasoning Queens Park were not formed until 1873 as well. As were Third Lanark. You cant argue with history its writen in stone. Rangers fans should be proud of the clubs history. But how can they celebrate something they know nothing about. So all I can say is read a book or 2. Start with the Ralstons Book. Its one of the best club history books writen and I should know I have over 600 football books. Ok Rant over. im amazed that the club feel the need to neglect facts !!they are letting the fans down....something must be done to stop a thread like this becoming a major debate and talking point ...i mean we are a club proud of our history or are we?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangershistory 0 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 1873 is what i recognise So what your saying is you recognise an untruth then, You recognise that there is no evidence that Moses McNeil played in Rangers first game. You rcognise that out first gae was against Havelock. Is that what your saying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueIsTheColour 35 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 The funny thing is that even the club acknowledge that our first game was against Callander FC in a 0-0 draw, in 1872. Yet they claim the club was formed in 1873. Amazing that the truth has been supressed for so long really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whyrusogood 2 Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share Posted October 10, 2009 1873 is what i recognise So what your saying is you recognise an untruth then, You recognise that there is no evidence that Moses McNeil played in Rangers first game. You rcognise that out first gae was against Havelock. Is that what your saying. ur begining to do my tits in mate....nobody said they dont but they have been brought up with this date not because he wanted to but because for the majority of rangers history this was the date we were told....again its all about educating the fans something ur doing well with but by putting people down and making them feel stupid! the vote at the top tells a story or are u just going to come back with the same line as i said rangers the team we support and look up 2 are the ones confusing the fans by not coming out and recognising it by telling people! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weebawbees 1 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 1873 is what i recognise So what your saying is you recognise an untruth then, You recognise that there is no evidence that Moses McNeil played in Rangers first game. You rcognise that out first gae was against Havelock. Is that what your saying. ur begining to do my tits in mate....nobody said they dont but they have been brought up with this date not because he wanted to but because for the majority of rangers history this was the date we were told....again its all about educating the fans something ur doing well with but by putting people down and making them feel stupid! the vote at the top tells a story or are u just going to come back with the same line as i said rangers the team we support and look up 2 are the ones confusing the fans by not coming out and recognising it by telling people! But people are capable of changing their mind, no? Or do you still believe the earth is flat? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whyrusogood 2 Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share Posted October 10, 2009 1873 is what i recognise So what your saying is you recognise an untruth then, You recognise that there is no evidence that Moses McNeil played in Rangers first game. You rcognise that out first gae was against Havelock. Is that what your saying. ur begining to do my tits in mate....nobody said they dont but they have been brought up with this date not because he wanted to but because for the majority of rangers history this was the date we were told....again its all about educating the fans something ur doing well with but by putting people down and making them feel stupid! the vote at the top tells a story or are u just going to come back with the same line as i said rangers the team we support and look up 2 are the ones confusing the fans by not coming out and recognising it by telling people! But people are capable of changing their mind, no? Or do you still believe the earth is flat? please read previous comments iv made everyone will...u dont seem to get me that there are people who dont know i.e r u going to tell a older gers fan maybe in his 70's or 80's who was told this date but because he doesnt read books and info that has come out and rangers dont come out and make it public this guy doesnt want to know?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weebawbees 1 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 1873 is what i recognise So what your saying is you recognise an untruth then, You recognise that there is no evidence that Moses McNeil played in Rangers first game. You rcognise that out first gae was against Havelock. Is that what your saying. ur begining to do my tits in mate....nobody said they dont but they have been brought up with this date not because he wanted to but because for the majority of rangers history this was the date we were told....again its all about educating the fans something ur doing well with but by putting people down and making them feel stupid! the vote at the top tells a story or are u just going to come back with the same line as i said rangers the team we support and look up 2 are the ones confusing the fans by not coming out and recognising it by telling people! But people are capable of changing their mind, no? Or do you still believe the earth is flat? please read previous comments iv made everyone will...u dont seem to get me that there are people who dont know i.e r u going to tell a older gers fan maybe in his 70's or 80's who was told this date but because he doesnt read books and info that has come out and rangers dont come out and make it public this guy doesnt want to know?? i dont get your point - you've not explained it very well mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemacbrd 32 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 i have a mate who was born on the 27th of december 1980 but was not registered til january the following year, being registered in 1981 does not mean they did not exist in 1980 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briton 394 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 btw im not arguing about 1872 just that glasgow rangers the team are celebrated and known as 1873? Never mind the year, it's The Rangers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingWilBEARy 4,319 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 suprising results should be 1872 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboyrfc 296 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 i'd rather it was 1872 for a few reasons including the cup winners cup victory being in our centenary year but i have been brought up with 1873. My wallpaper for many a year said Rangers est. 1873 lets get rangers to sort this and we can all be pals! we are already all pals we are also the people Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeepBelieving1872 64 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 I wonder what one I went for.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jardy 0 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 i grew up beleiving it was 1873 so i stick with this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts